If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Well here are some results for the Vargas Stage III upgrade that has caused the N54 forum section to basically be engaged in chaos for the past few months. From accusations of vaporware, to comparison to single turbo upgrades, to countless other arguments the day has come and the Stage III Vargas Turbo upgrade dyno'd on 91 octane with no meth 572 horsepower to the rear wheels. This is with a Cobb flash tuned by BimmerBoost vendor Pro-Tuning Freaks.

Impressive? Yep, sure is and this seems to also be a 91 octane pump gas only world record for the N54. Now keep in mind this is just the beginning. What will it do with meth? What will do on E85? What will it do with race gas and big boost? What about different turbos? Sky appears to be the limit but for now this kind of performance on pump gas sure is a big boost (hah, get it?) to the N54 scene.

Congratulations to all involved, Vargas Turbo Tech, Pro-Tuning Freaks, Cobb, and just the N54 community as well. The impossible just became possible. Pictures, video, and dynograph below.

Given you ever so sneakly wrote PMs directly to Tony about me never being able to do this I doubt I'd like to provide you with data on request like this anymore. To do that without even giving the courtesy and waiting for some preliminary results is/was very low.

Going forward, I'm sorry, but you'll just have to sign a cheque for one of these and get your own data for discussion purposes. I won't entertain your keyboard battles/curiosity further. Hope you understand.

I think that the single turbo spools faster than the twin-turbo, for these two particular setups. The single turbo is fed by 3 liters of exhaust flow while each of the twins is fed by 1.5 liters of exhaust flow and the combined flow of the twin-turbos is higher than the single. Basically the twin-turbo setup tested here is largely oversized for a nice balance, it's made for outright power (I suppose this isn't a bad thing for most but it is for those who seek "balance" more than power).

My opinion is that using larger turbos compromise the trademark low-end torque of the N54 engine. The 10.2:1 compression ratio of this engine does not allow timing advance to be raised too much at lower RPMs (as I found out by playing with ATR on RBs), and the turbos do not provide the necessary pressure. So the low-end becomes weak. Even with RBs. I would say that's why Alpina chose a lower compression ratio for the N54 engine that they used in the previous B3 car.

Some solutions that I would see:

- Tune and use the "Timing (Spool)" map of the ECU (which is by default disabled in Cobb maps)

This table isn't disabled and is actually being used all the time by us.

Originally Posted by cstavaru

- Choose the turbos for the exact final power target - there is technical documentation available on this

This goes against your reasoning above on spool. The initial comment was flawed in its approach to explanation/reasoning as it compares differently flowing setups. Spool just comes down to volume of the exhaust manifold runners, heat and pre-turbine restriction. Yes, tuning certain things will certainly help in all situations but those three are key and make the most impact to spool.

Originally Posted by cstavaru

- A twin-scroll single-turbo setup (this would be the most "correct" and also the most cost-effective solution, why hasn't this been attempted until now ? I read HPF is working on this)

This is also a bit flawed as its discussing "correctness". There's simply no such thing as "correct". There's exhaust restriction/design and there's top end flow potential. Let's leave twin scroll discussions until we see them in action though and get some data. They're coming soon too.

Originally Posted by cstavaru

- Smaller turbos for the bi-turbo setup

That is an option for everyone including stock frame hybrid setups. Its all a matter of what power band your butt prefers at the end of the day and what you like to use your car for (i.e. individual hp/tq curve goals).

Here is the graph overlay from the one meth run. I literally turned the system on, and did a run. Nothing else, I lifted at like 5600 cause we were just testing IAT reaction and fuel recovery. Needless to say, the results were very interesting. We have a lot left in the 91 tune if we just get the fuel as you can see.

In my humble an inexperienced opinion, a comparison like that, tells me that boost was too high, and timing was still being pulled.
If simple octane and.cooling bumped and.smoothed power like that, i woukd think we woukd have to be a bit more conservative.
Now.before I get labelled a troll by real trolls, don't take the above as jab. If anything, ut shows justhow much power is left on the table. Im really excited for the development of this.

Can someone with more tangible tuning.experience debunk my thought process?

In my humble an inexperienced opinion, a comparison like that, tells me that boost was too high, and timing was still being pulled.
If simple octane and.cooling bumped and.smoothed power like that, i woukd think we woukd have to be a bit more conservative.
Now.before I get labelled a troll by real trolls, don't take the above as jab. If anything, ut shows justhow much power is left on the table. Im really excited for the development of this.

Can someone with more tangible tuning.experience debunk my thought process?

I think the understanding is that this was an all out 91 pump run... Safe... who knows? Did it prove a point? Well, yes.

I think the understanding is that this was an all out 91 pump run... Safe... who knows? Did it prove a point? Well, yes.

I could.understand that. I applaud them.for giving us what we aksed.for.
Understandably, NOONE is or should run just 91 pisswater with these, that would be dumb, Hell, look at what 91/meth did for it. A proper meth failsafe and thats sick DD power. 93+meth really intrigues me, as that's what I would be running, as would most people. 600+ on pump meth would.be crazy, not to mention E85..
.

I could.understand that. I applaud them.for giving us what we aksed.for.
Understandably, NOONE is or should run just 91 pisswater with these, that would be dumb, Hell, look at what 91/meth did for it. A proper meth failsafe and thats sick DD power. 93+meth really intrigues me, as that's what I would be running, as would most people. 600+ on pump meth would.be crazy, not to mention E85..
.

Weird how that's exactly the opposite of what you was arguing a couple a couple weeks ago when I said 93 + meth was what I was interested in seeing. Ohh and the DME pulls timing in response to CATs without it being corrections, you can easily lose several degrees of timing advance in response to CATs and not have a single correction. That's how the DME can compensate for a fairly aggressive tune and it still be safe in hot weather.

This is just a theory at the moment. But, here is a diagram of the high pressure pump. #6 is the low pressure inlet. Fuel is then regulated by a control valve (which, is 100% open when high pressure is under target), through a check valve, in to the fuel chamber where it is compressed up to 2000psi+.

I think what is limiting the pump output is the diameter of its internal low pressure passages in to the fuel chamber. At 70psi they can flow a certain amount. We've found if pressure drops to 50psi, the pump output drops. Presumably because a lower volume of fuel can make it in to the fuel chamber. So it stands to reason that upping that low pressure to 100psi will increase pump output.

Consistent with the theory is that Tony says he is (inadvertently) running 80-90psi low pressure currently, and has a dyno showing more torque than I've never seen the stock pump supply.

I'd start with opening the inlet a tad and I'd also run a wider line to the HPFP as well as between the LPFP and the regulator to get that part out of the way.

Weird how that's exactly the opposite of what you was arguing a couple a couple weeks ago when I said 93 + meth was what I was interested in seeing. Ohh and the DME pulls timing in response to CATs without it being corrections, you can easily lose several degrees of timing advance in response to CATs and not have a single correction. That's how the DME can compensate for a fairly aggressive tune and it still be safe in hot weather.

we start here and move on... no need to jump the ship a'la another tuner...

Weird how that's exactly the opposite of what you was arguing a couple a couple weeks ago when I said 93 + meth was what I was interested in seeing. Ohh and the DME pulls timing in response to CATs without it being corrections, you can easily lose several degrees of timing advance in response to CATs and not have a single correction. That's how the DME can compensate for a fairly aggressive tune and it still be safe in hot weather.

This.

To clarify though, we made 582whp once meth was turned on for the same map that made 572whp on just 91 octane. The 602whp pull where Tony lifted had a new map with just 2deg extra timing on top of 91 and smoothing changes to boost control to lift the bump you saw at 4500-5k rpm.

Its just work in progress and lots more to follow. Don't be too hard on us for showing you preliminary results guys. Its easy not to show anything until its all perfect but that'd mean no fun on the forums I know how much I anticipate seeing results out there but let's try not to nitpick just yet. Once we say that's all we can do then we can all nitpick heh

Given you ever so sneakly wrote PMs directly to Tony about me never being able to do this I doubt I'd like to provide you with data on request like this anymore. To do that without even giving the courtesy and waiting for some preliminary results is/was very low.

Going forward, I'm sorry, but you'll just have to sign a cheque for one of these and get your own data for discussion purposes. I won't entertain your keyboard battles/curiosity further. Hope you understand.

HA, sneaky... I wrote one PM cause he asked me to... giving my thoughts on setup with NO mention of PTF not being able to do it. I try helping where I can.

To clarify though, we made 582whp once meth was turned on for the same map that made 572whp on just 91 octane. The 602whp pull where Tony lifted had a new map with just 2deg extra timing on top of 91 and smoothing changes to boost control to lift the bump you saw at 4500-5k rpm.

Its just work in progress and lots more to follow. Don't be too hard on us for showing you preliminary results guys. Its easy not to show anything until its all perfect but that'd mean no fun on the forums I know how much I anticipate seeing results out there but let's try not to nitpick just yet. Once we say that's all we can do then we can all nitpick heh

how large are the balls in your entire crew? large enough to turn things up to 700 whp on stock internals? just curious at what point you won't feel safe to go any further?

how large are the balls in your entire crew? large enough to turn things up to 700 whp on stock internals? just curious at what point you won't feel safe to go any further?

LOL great question..on someone else's car (such as in this case) as long as the car isn't knocking and there's enough fuel to support the power if the owner is willing to push the limits and sign liability waivers we're game...on my own car limits are always pushed but again provided knock is in check and fuel is there...pushing past previously well known limits on any hardware is exploring the unexplored and everyone should be understand the risks

LOL great question..on someone else's car (such as in this case) as long as the car isn't knocking and there's enough fuel to support the power if the owner is willing to push the limits and sign liability waivers we're game...on my own car limits are always pushed but again provided knock is in check and fuel is there...pushing past previously well known limits on any hardware is exploring the unexplored and everyone should be understand the risks

kool, really curious as to what you guys can do here...

Originally Posted by rader1

What?

my point is simple... what was done here was appropriate. tony showed us max power on the worst quality pump gas as opposed to doing an all out meth run like Shiv from the beginning. No need to fault LM here for asking valid questions even though his eventual preference may be to run meth as well.

Weird how that's exactly the opposite of what you was arguing a couple a couple weeks ago when I said 93 + meth was what I was interested in seeing. Ohh and the DME pulls timing in response to CATs without it being corrections, you can easily lose several degrees of timing advance in response to CATs and not have a single correction. That's how the DME can compensate for a fairly aggressive tune and it still be safe in hot weather.

Actually, not so much. What @LostMarine, myself & a few other people were asking for were for the results to not be dependent on 9x octane + meth runs, but instead for a combination of dynos, specifically strict Pump Gas numbers, Pump with Meth numbers, and finally Race Gas/E85 + Meth numbers. This way, it illustrated what the setup was capable of for people who don't run meth and/or how much power you have if you were out of meth.

Here are the two most important quotes that illustrate WHY there was a substantial power increase when meth was added:

Originally Posted by VargasTurboTech

We were heat soaking pretty bad, and at that point running up against the HPFP limit. We ran the meth for 1 run, iat's plummeted and fuel trims went -20 DME still has some control to keep things safe, it saw more fuel and cooler charge and responded with some extra power, trust me I told the people there this is not going to add any power, we just want to see if it helps with the fuel issues. Ran it up lifted at 5900 looked up and was like wtf. I'll post the graph when I get home. Just kinda let us know how much more is in there with a few small changes. LM, that's really my only reasoning as to why because it made no sense to me either. Extra fuel when you are getting close to a ceiling, and a cooler intake charge go a long way.

Originally Posted by dzenno@ProTUNING Freaks

This.

To clarify though, we made 582whp once meth was turned on for the same map that made 572whp on just 91 octane. The 602whp pull where Tony lifted had a new map with just 2deg extra timing on top of 91 and smoothing changes to boost control to lift the bump you saw at 4500-5k rpm.

SO big surprise, the 602 WHP pull (91 + Meth) was NOT the same tune that produced the 572 WHP (strict 91 pump gas). I have nothing against the ProTuning Freaks guys and Tony, but you can see how Tony's post was a little misleading. Myself included, some people could've read that post & been lead to believe that both runs were done on the same tune with meth being the only new variable added into the mix, thus being the only reason for the additional HP.

So awesome that you are starting from piss 91 octane fuel an moving up steadily to see the gains in steps for different setups your customers will run great job not hiding behind glory runs .. But on that note I'd love to see a glory run on FTW E85 race gas screw the c16 run this has timing advantages even over c16 and is oxygenated to boot !